The economics of classical music making (Online Discussion #1)

Online discussion #1 is available for comments February 6-12. The rubric I’ll be using to grade your participation and a description of these assignments is available here.

As with all aspects of music and music making, the economics of classical music vary from place to place and across historical periods. This discussion is an introduction to the trajectory of music history in the West (i.e., Europe and North America) for the few hundred years our course material covers. Try to keep these ideas in mind as a backdrop for all the music we encounter this semester.

How do economics and music relate?

Economic factors—such as who has money, how much they have, how they spend it, and why they spend it—determine the way that music is made, what it sounds like, who listens to it, and the circumstances in which people experience music. They lurk behind all the various musical sounds we hear, and knowing a little bit of economic history can give our ears insight into the how and why behind much of the music we encounter.

If any of this material is review for you, this in opportunity to incorporate a layer of music to your background knowledge! If you haven’t taken a history or economics course that covers these topics, use the embedded links throughout the blog post to fill in gaps in your understanding.

The patronage system

For most of the European continent’s history, the countries we think of as being “European” didn’t exist—e.g., France, Germany, Italy. Instead, the land was divided into multi-ethnic empires, city-states, and nomadic groups. Nations as we now know them were established in the late-18th and 19th centuries as a way to unify groups of people who shared a linguistic heritage and other common cultural features, along with geographic proximity. Kings existed, but they didn’t hold the real power—wealth, military strength, or direct control of the land where food was produced—this was wielded by aristocrats (noblemen with various titles: duke, viscount, baron, earl, lord, prince) or the Catholic Church.

And everyone else? The majority of the population consisted of peasants, and they worked in the fields generating the wealth of said aristocrats.

Experts at communicating their socio-economic status

Part of the value of being wealthy and powerful is letting other people know that you’re wealthy and powerful. It creates a sense of respect, a healthy dose of fear, and a social class identity. One of the ways that the aristocracy and the Church were able to demonstrate their might was with the art that they commissioned, displayed, and controlled: they were the patrons of the arts, and the patronage system was the economic structure in which art was produced for these patrons. (A great background to the division of societies into people who produce food, rulers, and artisans/religious figures who consolidate those rulers’ power is the 1999 book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond).

Art (including music) wasn’t just a pleasant diversion or pastime under the patronage system—it was part of PR and image control for those in positions of power.

Architecture, for example, was used to demonstrate might and financial resources.

Esterhazy, the Hungarian country estate of the Duke of Esterhaza, who employed the composer Joseph Haydn.The cathedral (duomo) of Siena, build 1215-1348

The visual arts captured a patron’s image for posterity. They often include not only sumptuous attire (rich fabrics, intense colors, and intricate details) but also depictions of music making, because it was believed by members of the noble classes that musical talent and musical taste proved how worthy a person was. (Most noblemen and noblewomen learned to play an instrument as a hobby.)

The Lady and the Unicorn tapestry (woven detail excerpt, late 15th century)

To be a musician under the patronage system meant to hold a job post at a patron’s center of power: a cathedral or an aristocratic court. This form of employment was a lifelong commitment, and a musician would earn a salary and also receive a uniform, be provided with supplies to make their art (staff paper, ink, instruments), and be housed and fed (including firewood for the winter). A musician’s duties were often extensive: a composer would also be required to teach, perform, and oversee other subordinate musicians (hiring and firing). In return, the patron had final say on everything their employee did: travelling, permission to sell sheet music, and what music was made (more on that below). It was often in a patron’s best interest to allow their musicians to travel and publish sheet music—the fame and respectability of their employee would reflect positively on the patron and add more prestige to their reputation.

You may be surprised by some of the tasks or activities required of a composer such as Johann Sebastian Bach (1685-1750), who was employed (1723-50) by the German town of Leipzig to oversee and compose music for its four Lutheran churches: bach-duties-in-leipzig

Economics and taste

The baryton, a 19-string instrument played by Hadyn’s patron and almost no one else

Music written for a patron was designed to suit the needs or taste of the patron. If the patron loves the baryton (as Haydn’s patron did), a composer will write a lot of music for the baryton (Haydn wrote 72 trios for the instrument, even though no one else was doing it anywhere in the world). If a patron loves dance music (like King Louis XIV of France), then their composers and musicians need to be really good at creating and playing dance music. If a composer writes music their patron doesn’t like, the patron will tell them not to write like that any more, and that will be the end of that.

But what about self-expression?

Something that you may find disconcerting or uncomfortable at this point is the realization that much music that exists in the world isn’t written for personal expression—it’s a job. The contour of a melody, the emotions conveyed by the harmony, or the instruments used aren’t necessarily an expression of the composer’s desires, just what he knew would keep him employed—they express the taste preferences of whoever was footing his bills.

The rise of nation states and shift to free-market capitalism

We don’t live in strict patronage system any longer, and that makes it seem like musicians are free to create whatever they music they want—they don’t have to please a king or aristocrat who is their lifelong employer. Bring on the self-expression!

Not so fast…

The shifting political-economic landscape in late-18th and 19th centuries simply means that music is now treated in a different way. The musician’s role in society becomes one of selling goods that the public may or may not buy. Public taste is volatile (particularly so when ideas are able to spread more and more quickly, as the Internet now allows), and this means that some musicians try to suit public taste (for example, commercial jingles, soundtracks, and pop music) while others simply make what they want to make, with complete disregard to whether or not consumers like it.

Ludwig van Beethoven, a composer not directly employed under the patronage system

Ludwig van Beethoven (1770-1832) navigated this economic transition by using both the patronage system and the emerging capitalist markets to his advantage. He threatened three Viennese aristocrats (who loved his music and loved having him in their city) with a job offer he had received to join a court outside of Vienna. Under fear of losing him, these aristocrats caved to his threat and agreed to pay him a healthy annual subsidy to remain in the city with no other strings attached. Beethoven also shrewdly published his music simultaneously in multiple countries at once—there was no such thing as copyright law at this point, so if Beethoven had sold his work to an Austrian publisher, for example, there was nothing stopping a French publisher from copying it and selling it themselves. Beethoven’s business acumen beat them to the punch and took advantage of the fact that he was well-known across Europe, with consumers everywhere clamoring for his music.

Musicians today: the gig economy

An ideal situation for many modern musicians is holding a steady position with either an orchestra (as a performer or conductor) or a university or conservatory (teaching composition, performance, music theory, music history, or some combination of those subjects). The best jobs in these fields pay quite well, but there aren’t very many opportunities to go around. The next few paragraphs deal with orchestral performers, but the same issues are true for composers and professorships.

This 2012 article (dorris-the-audition) describes the process of preparing for orchestral auditions: how much time it takes, what a player does to prepare, how they earn a living while trying to win a job, what happens after they win a job, how few jobs there are, and how much money orchestral musicians make. It is an easy read and features Mike Tetrault, an orchestral percussionist.

Jane Little (1929-2016), who played bass in the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra for 71 years.

Musicians in the top US orchestras earn around $100,000 per year (depending on where the orchestra is located; players in Alabama earn less than those in Chicago, for example), and that shows how valuable and rare high quality orchestral playing skills are. There are very few top orchestras, however, and there are only 20 orchestras in the US whose average salaries are over $55,000 per year.

Demand for these jobs is high. There are 117 symphony orchestras in the US. That means there are approximately 11,700 orchestral job positions in the US, assuming each orchestra has 100 players, which is an over-estimate. But that’s not the same as saying there are 11,700 job openings there are every year, because once someone wins a good orchestral job, they hold onto it for 30-40 years. For flute players, for example, there were only 4 job openings in the US in all of 2015-16.

There are approximately 60 college-level music schools or conservatories in the US, and they typically train musicians to enter a specialized career trajectory of being an orchestral player or opera singer. Each school will graduate a class of around 150 students each year —that’s 9,000 students every year.

Add all those graduating students to the musicians who haven’t won an orchestral job yet (say, 8,975 from every previous year), plus international musicians…

Uh-oh.

The typical modern musician’s career is a prime example of the gig economy: cobbling together a living wage from several small revenue streams, none of which is sufficient on its own, none of which provides benefits like health insurance or retirement savings, and none of which is guaranteed to continue.

Concerts— Musicians may be paid by a venue or concert series for their appearance, they may take home ticket sales, or their performance may be organized by a management company. A concert payment for a musician can range from $0 to $4,000, but most concert performances pay $100-750 per player. This also includes many orchestral jobs outside of the top orchestras, which are paid “per service” rather than a salary (around $40 per rehearsal and $150 per performance).

Commissions— Composers charge commissioning fees when someone asks them to write a work. Rates depend on the length of the piece (longer = more expensive), the number of musicians (more musicians = more expensive), and how famous the composer is (more famous = more expensive). The commission fee may range from $2,000 to $100,000, depending on these factors. Often, groups of performers will form a consortium to commission a work and divide cost among all members, so that no single player has to bear the weight of the entire expensive commission themselves.

Teaching private lessons— A musician recruits students to take individual lessons (in performance, conducting, or composition), finds space to teach in, prepares lessons for each student’s individual needs and desires, keeps students and parents happy, and organizes performance opportunities for their students. The cost of a one-hour lesson varies based on geography and teacher: $15 (in Texas and the Midwest), $60-75 (typical in NYC), $225 (for lessons with the most famous teachers in NYC).

Teaching primary education— This includes band directors, orchestra directors, and choir directors in elementary, middle, and high schools.

Teaching secondary education— Most college and university instructors teach at more than one campus, and most positions are adjunct (hired just for that class or semester with no guarantee of being rehired).

Grant writing — There are several foundations and government organizations that support the arts and music making, and they award money (ranging from a couple hundred dollars to millions of dollars, depending on the organization) for the creation and public sharing of artistic work via a competitive application process. Here’s a taste of what grant writing is all about.

It takes a lot of these activities to add up to a living wage, and booking one gig doesn’t guarantee that there will be more work in the future. Many musicians work “day jobs” that allow them to practice, rehearse, and gig at night: dog walker, yoga instructor, grant writer, administrative assistant, baby sitter, paralegal, plumber, or insurance salesman. Sometimes these day jobs take over, and a musician stops being a musician entirely.

You may have noticed that I left out online streaming as a source of revenue for the average classical musician working today. That’s because it typically doesn’t pay well for anyone, regardless of their musical style—the average pay is $0.0025 per play.

Final thoughts

Making music is more complicated than being inspired and sharing sounds with the world. Oftentimes the most financially successful musicians aren’t necessarily the most talented, the most interesting, or the most artistic—they’re the ones whose skills (musical and business skills) aligned with the economic means and demands of the time and place in which they live. The music we’re left with over time is the music that was created in courts and churches that had the means to fund and preserve copies of sheet music over several centuries (not necessarily the best music), and the music we come across on the radio or digital media is often also the result of a musician being aligned with record companies, management, or promoters who have the economic clout to ensure that their music is heard (again, not necessarily the best musicians).

-Dr. J.

Questions to get the conversation going:

What similarities or differences do you see between the economics of classical music and the ways that non-classical (pop, hip-hop, rock) music is made today?

How do people today show off their socio-economic status through the art in their lives (their music, their fashion, home décor, etc.)? How have you used someone’s taste in music (or other art) as a way to judge them?

Would you rather be a musician employed under the patronage system or in the modern gig economy?

72 thoughts on “The economics of classical music making (Online Discussion #1)”

This read was honestly one that has opened my mind in helping me understand the differences and similarities between classical and today’s music. Some similarities are that those creating, playing, and or composing these types of music have to be careful when making musical pieces. This is because these songs needed to please the people that were meant to listen to these works. Another similarity is that in both eras classical and today musicians don’t have that greater sense of musical freedom. In the case of classical music a lot stemmed from religious roots,while in today’s age most music comes from being catchy and sometimes it’s not good music at all. Now with that said there are major differences such as those making classical music were employed and given employment for life along with the tools and subordinates. They were also supposed to tech, compose,and oversee their subordinates. Along with this they were given great accommodations as far as living and eating are concerned. However in modern times this isn’t this case because of the constant competition for these jobs. For instance in order to get a seat in a concert you do need to audition but the pay can vary in many ways making it hard to make a living. Along with the fact that there are no benefits, retirement plans, or even guarantee that you will be playing fir the amounted time needed. Honestly Knowing what I have learned i would love to be a musician during the patronage system because at least I could live comfortably making music and even passing down the knowledge I have learned to others. I wouldn’t need that day job but instead I could do the thing that was most wanted in my life and feel great with every note played along with maybe inspiring others to be free and creative so that it doesn’t feel like work instead of being told that music doesn’t pay because it’s not liked by the masses. Really I just have a problem when a song today has 90% of it’s lyrics be nothing but profanity and then being heard through the ears of children who repeat this without any understanding of what it means because it’s just satire now. Kids don’t know that and parents can’t even parent there children so they grow up with twisted vies of themselves and other. So if it means I have to give up my loved vocalists to live a prosperous life than I see no reason why I would want to be in a modern gig economy. Now how some people show off their own socio-economic status is mostly seen through materiel means. This could stem anywhere from fancier big name items like Michael Kors bags that can cost thousands of dollars to Rolex watches again being a great amount. However for me I am trying not to just assume anything anymore because I myself listen to a plethora of different music genres of music but just because I listen to a classical song doesn’t make me anymore intelligent that the person who listens to rap. I try to let my experiences and ideals carry my status because I myself live in a family where money is scarce but that doesn’t mean I am incapable of changing that though hard work. I am motivated and driven and just because my status today is at a low doesn’t mean that I will remain there because life has a lot to teach. All you have to do is be willing to learn.

While reading this i found some statements that caught my attention. One of them was under The Patronage System section which stated that certain members of the noble classes believed that musical talent and musical taste proved how worthy a person was. I found this an interesting statement because it made me think and wonder how does or did someone’s musical taste and talent prove how worthy one is? What made some people more or less worthy than others based on their taste or talent in music? These questions still circle through my head if one of you have a theory or answer to them please let me know. When i saw the sub-title which would be talking about self expression i almost immediately thought of music and how it helps people to freely express themselves. Instead the passage surprised me by talking about how even though certain music may help listeners with their self-expression today some to most music is not written as or for personal/self-expression but simply because it’s their job. Well thats some artists others i imagine that they do use personal expression or ideas for their songs. This brings me to a fact learned between similarity and differences between classical era and today’s a similarity of the way music was written back then in classical times and how it is written today is that in both eras the musicians or artists don’t have a great amount or sense of musical freedom. Know with a similarity stated i might as well state a difference i learned as well. Though there are many one difference that i learned from reading this and that many surely already know as well is the difference in the music itself and how in the era of classical music, music was listened sung and based upon the beliefs of the people, and the messages and beauty of the music,considering back in the classical era music was built and grew as religous music first which was played and sang in church. While the music today is chosen based on the tunes, the beats, sound effects,and remixes and the sound rather than the inner meaning also the way of listening and how it has industrialized and moderized over the years to phones,computers,i pods and so on rather than actual live performances. Overall this post was very interesting and imformative as well as honest and straight foward on music and how it works with the economy. Although i have learned a lot about musics economics and so the fact of making money and how it is used more for the economic benefits rather than love for the hobby or career itself i believe there are still some artists and writers that write from their heart and for their passion for music itself rather than how it may benefit them economically.

It is hard to say, which is better? Would someone rather be stuck in the classical era getting paid to please someone else, not being able to write and perform what they as musicians like, or living in the modern era hardly being able to hold down a job, and when and if you ever do there is low pay and no benefits. Personally I can relate to the typical modern musicians career. I am a hairstylist. My pay is very dependent on the tips I make during that week. As I am just starting off it makes it even more difficult. Just like modern musicians this career as well does not provide you with benefits.

I think it’s interesting to compare how music was made in the Patronage system to how it’s made now. In the Patronage system music was more of a job. They made music to suit an authorities liking. Today we are under the impression that artist make music that is personal or has a motive and is made in hopes people like their style, which to an extent is true but every musical artist wants exposure. They start with a fan base that gets bigger and bigger until BAM they go “mainstream” and land a huge record deal and have sponsorship. At that point it’s becomes less of making music they wanted to make and hoping people like it and becomes more of making music that responds well in exchange for more money and more fans. They become “sell outs” they are no longer making the music they made because they now have to adhere to a record company. one can argue that they still make music for the fans but is it fans or the new target audience? Is making music for a king any different from making music for a CEO?

I agree with your perspective of how in someway modern musicians also tend to make music to please their fans even though they may not like what they made but they keep doing it because it will still bring them profits.

When I was younger, my elementary school always have winter, spring, and summer choirs. Also I took drums lessons at music hall in flushing, NY. Plus during my senior year in high school, My friends and I were singing Lean on Me by Bill Withers for the graduation.

What similarities or differences do you see between the economics of classical music and the ways that non-classical (pop, hip-hop, rock) music is made today? One of similarities that I see within classical music and modern music is when an artist brags about wealth in some fashion. Also, background comes to play when pursuing a musical career, some artist come from a wealthy background which is a huge benefit for creating music.
How do people today show off their socio-economic status through the art in their lives (their music, their fashion, home décor, etc.)? How have you used someone’s taste in music (or other art) as a way to judge them? Successful musical artist deliberately show off their wealth may it be buy purchasing lavish homes, cars, or even donating a large sum of money to a charity. I believe that the type of music someone listens to shows who they really are or where they are coming from, I don’t judge the person for the type of music they listen to, but really get a bigger picture of who they are as a person.
Would you rather be a musician employed under the patronage system or in the modern gig economy?
Personally, I feel that the “modern gig economy” best suits me if I were to peruse music as an career, because the amount of exposure to your talent/music is extremely easy with the right mind set. Which in return will help you gain more gigs and relevance.

I can totally see the similarities between both systems: the main goal is to gain economic stability. I fell that as long as we have money as the primary way of exchanging goods and services we are going to keep finding ourselves -as artists- facing the challenge of choosing between following our dreams, or actually making a living out of music. Maybe for some their dream is just to provide, but I believe that our responsibility as musicians is not only to perform or to compose, it is also to keep alive our cultural heritages as we enrich the music world with our ideas. Yes, it is fine to make money doing mainstream art or gigging on a certain band just because of the payment and not because you like the music they play, but we have the duty to remain honest to ourselves and not to forget our original goals and dreams when we first started playing an instrument or singing. I guess what I’m trying to say is “make a living, of course, but don’t forget to give back, to support the arts in your community, to mentor children, or even to use that money to finance that independent project you always dreamed of -that one that is going to actually insert some new ideas to the art and not just repeat everything that is already done.” KEEP IT REAL.

I think both times during the classical era, and the gig economy are rather both difficult, because it feels that you’re being controlled, one by the type of music you have to play rather than playing the music that interested you. The second is where you want to work, if you are hired by an orchestra, you won’t get enough especially in a small town. It’s hard to choose in what era I rather be in. Comparing classical music to music in modern times, is the profanity. Now days being controversial such as Eminem, or N.W.A, they know their music will sell, opposed to acts of Mozart or Beethoven where the instrument tell you they story of what’s going the tone, but will be boring to people who live in our era. I think that now they’re no social-economic status in modern times compared to classical times because more persons are educated now, compared now to classical times which were only a few.

i.ll add that the The patronage system is very different from the gig economy because A gig economy is an environment in which temporary positions are common and organizations offers independent workers short term contracts. but on the other hand the patronage system is much difficult and different from the gig economy because of a long term contract between artist and patron Patronage is the support, or financial aid that an organization or individual gives to another but in return the person who receives the support has to engage in a a long term contract with the provider and the word patronage related to patron and the meaning of patron in English dictionary is “the one that uses wealth or influence to help an individual, an institution, and have an unspoken contract between artist and patron.”
is not hard to imagine ,the goal was for a individual/artist who were in a long term contract with a patron is to meet the expectations, needs, or desires of the patron .

I’ve never thought that there would be a relationship between economics and musics. And this is what I found on Google search: (https://prezi.com/ytb4uqjgcwy2/the-relationship-between-music-and-economics/). This made me think “Oh!” the iTunes and singers get paid by their songs and by listening to their music it cost money! That’s how song writers, singers and producers make their profit. However there is a way we also do not to pay a single cent just by going into Youtube and on the internet.

Although both goals for both systems was financial stability during the Patronage system it was easier to achieve that. I feel that the Patronage system was more of a job thing and now the gig system is more passion and people have jobs and play gigs on the side.

Personally I would rather be a musician in the Patronage system era because i would job security and financial stability. If it was not my full time job i would like to be employed now because i would be just playing for fun or just a little money on the side.

Indeed but you will have to work hard in order to create music in that era of time, especially because almost all music was judged by aristocrats you would have to make music that is beautiful in there ears.

Also I’ve never seen the baryton, a 19-string instrument but I’ve always seen a violin, viola, cello, base, ukulele and guitar which they are most common string instruments that I know. I learned the violin in the past and it is not easy to play well with 4 strings and I felt how hard would baryton be if I were to play. Hadyn surprised me on how she did that. It’s all her effort and hard work.

ok so heres a question for my fellow classmates what MADE music change over time? it wasn’t just the new technology or maybe it was was that can’t be the whole reason and updating to todays time what makes the artists change who they are? the fame the money the directors but why if who they are is what made them famous to begin with ? and i stand by my first question on my first post what or better yet why or how does someones taste in music define how worthy they are? and a final question why is music to be known to have changed and become so different from past classical music? o i guess it was more than just one question lol just somethings going around in my mind and trying to keep everyone else minds open

I find the ending paragraph to “The Patronage System” to be intriguing, It speaks of how the image of a patron and how it reflects on music today. With the clothing designs being made with rich fabrics, intense maybe retro like colors and very diverse details seen in the image, It relates to the influence of a 20th centuries rock/rap star with their rich fabric style and designer clothing.

I would definitely rather be a musician in the current era since it give me the ability to express myself freely as an individual, and it also gives me the ability to inspire others to become a musician.

@kennethk123 I would definitely have to agree with you on that because not everyone likes Rihanna or Drake and it would really suck if that was all there was to listen to. I think to express one’s self musically is truly inspiring and someone that has the ability to do that is truly very talented.

The Patronage system seems boring and repetitive and there is no space for self expression. Such a system would restrict musicians tremendously because one’s capabilities would not be met. A musician would be unable to compose music at their artistic capacity. However, it is understood why in the past musicians agreed to this system. In order to earn a living and provide for their families they didn’t have many options. This system may have it’s disadvantages but it ensured steady income. In the modern gig economy it is advantageous that musicians are free to heighten their musical talents, they are able to be different and bring their own style and feelings to their music and that is very important. Being a musician isn’t all about making top dollars but many people use it as an outlet to share their feelings, inner thought, beliefs and understanding to the world and that I believe is pertinent when making music, be it for pleasure or as a profession; people need to be able to relate to music in order to enjoy it. If people were forced to make music just to earn a living I believe that music wouldn’t be all that it is today. It would be just another day job like sitting at a desk crunching numbers from 9-5!

Many musicians making music just for their interest at the beginning, they maybe just wants to express their thoughts about something. They may change after but their beginning it’s good.
The Classical music it’s maybe not as popular as the nonclassical music but they mean an era. When you listen this kind of music you can know a little about that era. But because of some music is so good that it fits for many eras so it becomes classical. And the most kinds of classical music I know is the piano piece, because I was playing piano before so I listened to many piano pieces. When the musicians make their music, they love to express their thoughts with people, the people have the same feeling with the music, so they love this song. It also important to listen to the music when you in the same situation. Therefore, even the music it’s good, but it’s will be wonderful when you have the same feeling, that’s how music communicate.

It seems as the patronage system and the free market-capitalist society are totally different from each other but if we really analyze it we could find some similarities. In the patronage system , musicians didn’t have creativity freedom to create musical pieces in order to satisfy and please kings and noble class. In today’s society,musicians and singers don’t need to satisfy a king, but they do need to satisfy a public, radio stations, and the mainstream in general. So not everything we hear from them is the artist’s personal and truth expression because the goal of music companies is to make profit.

It’s hard to Decide in which era. Although some people might say “choose your passion “and “do what You love” we do need financial stability to sustain ourselves and sometimes our families.It makes it a courageous and brave act for all the aspiring musicians and artists in general who are pursuing these career that are unstable and not so easy.
Which also made me think…

Why are musicians and the arts in general a job that gets underpaid, undervalued and under-appreciated. This is another thing that the patronage system and today’s society have in common. It’s seemed as a waste of time, as being lazy and not wanting to get a real job. I personally don’t think that our life Would be the same with out betoven,Shakespeare.frank Sinatra , the Beatles, michael Jackson , Frida khalo, da Vinci , Picasso, Mozart, Serrat, Van Gogh, Elvis Presley ,etc. MY POINT IS; that this profession should be essential to our personal and educational growth because it has changed and shaped our lives more than we know.

I agree with your perspective Allison. We created a list in class answering the question “What is music?”, and through that list you’re able to see what music has contributed to all of us. Whether you’re the listener or the composer, music has ignited us with that sense of “escape” and “expression”, which we all long for. Both the Patronage and today’s economic system lessen those attributes of music by forcing some musicians to lose their passion because of the fear of financial instability. When music is discussed in a social setting, no matter your age, race, gender or beliefs, everyone admits to how often they listen to music and realize their lives wouldn’t be the same if they didn’t have it. Music and its artist are much underrated and with all it’s done to benefit individuals, I will never understand why.

Yes I definitely have to agree with you Allison, if you look into our daily lives, everyone around us uses music on a daily basis, from riding the train to doing office work. I can’t agree more, our musicians shouldn’t be underpaid as music became an essential.

Not like before, the musicians use their music to express their own thoughts, they don’t need to fawn any king. They just make the music or the song they want or the public like, some of the musicians will keep their mind and do their own music even it’s not most people’s favorite, some of the musicians are willing to change their music styles in order to make money, it depends on the musicians themselves, if they want to change, they can. And the musicians don’t need to prove how they valued by music. The horse that covers a thousand li a day legendary connoisseur of horses.

I as well had a perspective on this, musicians in our society today produce music based on what their fans/listeners like, so they may amuse them and when their is a new trend in style most musicians grasp onto that new trend and create music that’s transparent to that trend. Bottom line musicians in our time are producing music to satisfy what we really want to hear.

Classical music and modern music differ in many ways but they are also similar. Classical music only used forms of acoustic instruments, such as violins, flutes, clarinets, harps, harmonicas and so on. Modern music uses many different types of instruments that aren’t necessarily limited because of technology. Classical music and modern music are similar because, in both eras, music is used to express emotions and feelings that the writers had at the moment.

1. I found it very interesting that the economics of classical music and how it was made was all for the one purpose of satisfying others needs. It wasn’t about creating and sharing your art and thoughts through music, but more so about pleasing a wealthy target audience. One can make the argument that this still exist in how todays modern non-classical music is made as well. For example if a well established artist has been successfully creating music that appeals to target audience (country, rock music), he or she would shy away from creating a different genre of music to avoid any bad feed back from their fans that already enjoy the genre they have been established in. Maybe its not what they want to create anymore, but they don’t want to risk losing fans.
2. People today love showing off their social and economic status through a lot of different forms of art. How one may dress to them is a form of art, having expensive paintings hung up in ones home, and even when an artist creates a music video all you see is the most expensive cars and people wearing a lot of jewelry. One can be judgmental of someone else by looking at how they dress or what kind of car their driving and letting that determine they economic status.
3. I would much rather be an artist in the modern gig economy.

If I am a musician, I will like to live in the modern gig economy.
First, born pure, keep oriented. Keep the feeling of why you start making music, why you wants to be a musician. Keep your first feeling of why you want to be a musician.
Second, no one starts easily. Even though you will have trouble, the shining thing not always is gold, but gold will glitter forever. There is always someone will find your talent.
Also, you don’t need to pay all of your attention on music, you do need something to relax. Before you become successful, you need to live. In China, I was sawing many musicians go to the variety show in order to make money, and the money he made he will use it to making music, therefore, find a way to live and then seek your dream.

My question for you is: Wouldn’t you agree that many artists had the same mindset when they realized they wanted to follow a musical career path? It’s much easier to tell yourself that you’ll remain authentic and true to the music but when you’re in such a competitive field, isn’t it possible to fall into the “mainstream” category when considering the financial aspect of it? Many artist begin with their own sounds and messages, overtime their sounds change and either become repetitive or lose that uniqueness that first got them notice. They start to give the people what they want. I agree with you on the idea that all artist should “keep the feeling of why they started making music”, but I just wanted to know your opinion on how can one be so sure that their talent will one day be recognized in a world where we all seek to be acknowledged for something we love to do?

I certainly agree with your answer. I would live in the modern gig economy too because I would want people to see what I have creatived without getting any approval from a King, for example. The modern world, especially in the U.S, gave us this self-expression which is something we should be grateful for.

1.What similarities or differences do you see between the economics of classical music and the ways that non-classical (pop, hip-hop, rock) music is made today?

Answer to question: The diffidence I see between classical music and non, is that they both different sets of emotions and sometimes the type of music you listen to determines what generation you are from, but they have similar things as in basses and instruments that are being used. They also have common elements of music in non classical and classical.

If I was a musician I think I would rather be it in the modern gig system than the patronage system. I would pick the modern gig system because even though it can’t be very reliable as in loving out of it I would still have the freedom to make the type of music I want. I could also not be force to be making music all the time as it was before In the patronage time when musicians were forced to write when they were told and what they were told but now I could make music when I feel like it. It may be hard to make it a full time job but at least I’ll have the freedom to pick wether I want it to be my full time occupation or not.

I think it would become some sort of commodity like playing non-competitive sports or any other kind of hobby. Probably, it would be closely related to the upper socio-economical classes like in the past (no working family would think in buying instruments or getting musical education just for the fun of it).

That is a really great question! In my opinion I would say yes, music would still be made. Why? Because when people create music they are expressing themselves and creating tunes to enjoy. If iTunes never have existed music would entirely be free rather then illegally downloading it from the internet, with iTunes it was sort of a given chance to let musicians sell what they create.

The connection between the economics of non-classical and classical music is that whether the artist was creating music during the Patronage system or the modern age, it was still distributed into the world for someone other than the artist themselves. During the Patronage, kings, popes, and those that governed controlled what types of music was being made by the composer. Bach was given multiple duties beyond just the making of the music. He was told to set a good example for those he taught, to show obedience, defend, and respect the honor of the authorities by all means. He could not accept invitations to play his music without permission. What he played seemed to impact his reputation but not nearly as much as it would affect the reputation of those who he represented. To continue the alliance, the officials rewarded the composers with financial stability. When reading this, your first impression maybe that you wouldn’t want to be an artist during the time when the patronage system was active, but aren’t artist today faced with some of the same duties/expectations? In modern society, artists typically sign a record deal that allows them to be branded and exposed. With a label, artist can collaborate with other musicians, they are guided by managers and publicist on what the public wants and what the artist needs to remain in the industry. To some extent artist today still follow a patronage system; however the difference lies in the financial security. Today’s artists are given more “freedom of expression”. Bach didn’t have music videos or the internet. His music would be judged solely on its sound whereas today’s musicians have other artistic molds that contribute to their popularity. How many times have we asked ourselves “How is ____ famous, they have no talent?” or “How is this even music?” That answer is based on what your perception of music is. Can we judge Beethoven as easily as we can judge Nicki Minaj? The media, the performances and visuals allow us to make false judgments on who these artist are as people. This is probably why the patronage system was so strict on what kind of music the composer made and how he behaved even outside the courts. If I had to choose between the patronage system and today’s economic gig, I’d choose today’s. The decision relies on whether you prefer financial security or the chance to express yourself as an artist (with consideration of the public).

It is pretty interesting that economics plus music can play such an important role in the music industries. I learned that the musician would use that the method, the Patronage System, back in the 18th – 19th century. I wonder if the artist today would use this method… From this quote, “Art (including music) wasn’t just a pleasant diversion or pastime under the patronage system—it was part of PR and image control for those in positions of power.” Which I find this quote, gratifying because music can make something more effective. According to this blogpost, in order to pursue in becoming a musician, one must working under the wealth people, Kings & the cathedral staff. However they did got a good amount of housing and they were given music supplies such as music sheets and instruments. What makes this topic more gratifying is to be getting improved by the patrons. If they did not like the musician, music then the musician must stop writing their music like that. As well as the prices of purchasing a ticket to attend a concert. Overall money runs over everything.

Both modern and classic times that music is an art.But in the classical era, People not only listen for entertainment and it was way of life. It still has meaning today and we do still talk about it today. If it not important and have an affect on us then why take about? But modern music has more freedom to do what they want.

I would certainly rather be a musician employed under the patronage system, because you are basically set you are now just producing music or art entirely for the person above you or who’s paying you. They supply you food, money, and travel. They also decide what you have to create so you don’t have to go on expressing your emotions and putting together the right tunes. You basically don’t have to work as hard as you would in the modern gig.

I understand where you are coming from, you want to be set for life and not have to worry about money, or food or even shelter, but the whole reason you play is to make yourself and those listening to your music feel something when you play. I got a “sellout” vibe from the patronage system while reading this article, you’re playing music that you don’t feel or have any say in, it just didn’t seem real to me.

If I had to choose between playing music under the patronage system or during the modern gig economy I would have to go with the modern gig economy. Why? Because I would rather play music that I love than play music that I don’t feel or that doesn’t come from my soul.